Thanks for the article, Karl; impressive to see this kind of solidarity despite the enormous pressures exerted by the 'rules-based order' on the participants, many of which are small countries trying the best to develop their economies and improve their peoples' lives.
I disagree partially with your conclusions: fascism can never really be eradicated - it's too attractive as a simplistic violent ideology to be used to blame the 'other' for all our woes; there will always be a minority all too willing to follow this path. The key question is the attitude of states and other powerful actors to fascism: if the West continues to rehabilitate people like Azov and hail them as 'heroes', and support its Zionist Israeli colonialist entity, there will, of course, inevitably be yet more wars against this evil ideology.
Eliminating extremism as a behavior within Humanity I see being related to Humanity's evolution over time, and that elimination is directly related to the continuance of hegemonic empire which uses it as a tool to divide and rule. Thus, it will take many generations for it to be purged. The last place I'd expect it to disappear is within the Outlaw US Empire.
Like you "I’m impressed with the interparliamentary association and its ability to generate solidarity between nations as it involves many more people than those at the top layer of governments."
Looking at a map of CIS countries; they form a nice tight group that provide alternative routes for the B&R.
The Russian Empire/ USSR's relationship with Central Asia was very much colonial in nature where more from the Periphery flowed to the Metropole leaving the former underdeveloped. That relationship has changed with their independence, but it has taken over a generation for economic stability to get established on the new basis between all CIS members, the Central Asian Stans most specifically. During the Soviet period, the Near Abroad was defined as being outside USSR's borders, and lip-service was always given to the need to promote those nation's wellbeing as that related to USSR's security. The Near Abroad has moved closer to Russia, but the rationale of economic development as it relates to security still stands. Ukraine much more than Russia suffered in the USSR's fall as it was politically unable to control the Western invasion, rise of those oligarchs it sponsored, and the rejuvenation of the Galician Nazis, which very quickly destabilized Ukraine politically. Ukraine was one of the founding CIS members but soon dropped out. There was little Russia could do at the time, and when Putin arrived it was too late to both heal Russia and mend Ukraine; and Belarus needed attention too. The Islamic extremism sponsored by the Outlaw US Empire was deemed more important to fight than the emerging Nazis in Ukraine, so more investments were made in the Stans, which is one of the main reasons why NATO failed in Afghanistan.
CIS development is intimately connected to Russia's security. The main reason why Pashinyan's courting EU/NATO has failed is because of Armenia's economic boom thanks to Russian investment.
Thanks for that update; a very useful synopsis. Looking at the map also suggests why NATO went there in the first place. The failure there was perhaps enevitable. I remember reading of an aged Afghan gentleman, who was reported as saying something like "When God wants to punish a nation He makes them attack Afghanistan."
IMO, Russia didn't attack Afghanistan; it was invited to help its government repel the invasion made by the Outlaw US Empire's Terrorist Foreign Legion. Clearly, the job wasn't complete when Gorbachev declared victory and exited, but it wasn't Afghan forces that caused that exit. As the Stans develop and prosper, the Afghans will slowly evolve and adopt genuine Islam and begin to prosper as interactions with the Ummah grow and aid development. Much depends on how Pakistan evolves.
Thank you for that explanation. It seems an obvious point that empire's financial power was exercised in Afghanistan. Had the terrorist intervention succceeded the subsequent 'War on Terror' invasion of Afghanistan would not have been necessary. I'm not clear on the details and timeline of the USSR's involvement so that now I know that Gorbachev was the leader I assume that the process that led to the 'collapse' of the USSR was already happening. In some ways the timeline probably contributed to the 'We won the Cold War' narrative and the hubristic notion that 'We can now create our own reality'.
Many different straws broke the USSR's camel back, not just the Afghan intervention associated arms race and Chernobyl. Look at today's Russia; there's no reason why that prosperity couldn't have been developed during the 1970s onward except for lack of vision and appropriate leadership.
Thanks for the article, Karl; impressive to see this kind of solidarity despite the enormous pressures exerted by the 'rules-based order' on the participants, many of which are small countries trying the best to develop their economies and improve their peoples' lives.
I disagree partially with your conclusions: fascism can never really be eradicated - it's too attractive as a simplistic violent ideology to be used to blame the 'other' for all our woes; there will always be a minority all too willing to follow this path. The key question is the attitude of states and other powerful actors to fascism: if the West continues to rehabilitate people like Azov and hail them as 'heroes', and support its Zionist Israeli colonialist entity, there will, of course, inevitably be yet more wars against this evil ideology.
Eliminating extremism as a behavior within Humanity I see being related to Humanity's evolution over time, and that elimination is directly related to the continuance of hegemonic empire which uses it as a tool to divide and rule. Thus, it will take many generations for it to be purged. The last place I'd expect it to disappear is within the Outlaw US Empire.
Like you "I’m impressed with the interparliamentary association and its ability to generate solidarity between nations as it involves many more people than those at the top layer of governments."
Looking at a map of CIS countries; they form a nice tight group that provide alternative routes for the B&R.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Commonwealth-of-Independent-States
The Russian Empire/ USSR's relationship with Central Asia was very much colonial in nature where more from the Periphery flowed to the Metropole leaving the former underdeveloped. That relationship has changed with their independence, but it has taken over a generation for economic stability to get established on the new basis between all CIS members, the Central Asian Stans most specifically. During the Soviet period, the Near Abroad was defined as being outside USSR's borders, and lip-service was always given to the need to promote those nation's wellbeing as that related to USSR's security. The Near Abroad has moved closer to Russia, but the rationale of economic development as it relates to security still stands. Ukraine much more than Russia suffered in the USSR's fall as it was politically unable to control the Western invasion, rise of those oligarchs it sponsored, and the rejuvenation of the Galician Nazis, which very quickly destabilized Ukraine politically. Ukraine was one of the founding CIS members but soon dropped out. There was little Russia could do at the time, and when Putin arrived it was too late to both heal Russia and mend Ukraine; and Belarus needed attention too. The Islamic extremism sponsored by the Outlaw US Empire was deemed more important to fight than the emerging Nazis in Ukraine, so more investments were made in the Stans, which is one of the main reasons why NATO failed in Afghanistan.
CIS development is intimately connected to Russia's security. The main reason why Pashinyan's courting EU/NATO has failed is because of Armenia's economic boom thanks to Russian investment.
Thanks for that update; a very useful synopsis. Looking at the map also suggests why NATO went there in the first place. The failure there was perhaps enevitable. I remember reading of an aged Afghan gentleman, who was reported as saying something like "When God wants to punish a nation He makes them attack Afghanistan."
IMO, Russia didn't attack Afghanistan; it was invited to help its government repel the invasion made by the Outlaw US Empire's Terrorist Foreign Legion. Clearly, the job wasn't complete when Gorbachev declared victory and exited, but it wasn't Afghan forces that caused that exit. As the Stans develop and prosper, the Afghans will slowly evolve and adopt genuine Islam and begin to prosper as interactions with the Ummah grow and aid development. Much depends on how Pakistan evolves.
Thank you for that explanation. It seems an obvious point that empire's financial power was exercised in Afghanistan. Had the terrorist intervention succceeded the subsequent 'War on Terror' invasion of Afghanistan would not have been necessary. I'm not clear on the details and timeline of the USSR's involvement so that now I know that Gorbachev was the leader I assume that the process that led to the 'collapse' of the USSR was already happening. In some ways the timeline probably contributed to the 'We won the Cold War' narrative and the hubristic notion that 'We can now create our own reality'.
Many different straws broke the USSR's camel back, not just the Afghan intervention associated arms race and Chernobyl. Look at today's Russia; there's no reason why that prosperity couldn't have been developed during the 1970s onward except for lack of vision and appropriate leadership.